Distributism

[Ed Pettibone]

If no one is in error, then there is no such thing as Truth, and thus the Truth sets no one free, it has been nullified.

That is hardly an argument for accepting your version of the truth.

Ed: So says Tim Boney ? Note the question mark Tim. And note that Matto's statement starts with- If. Where in you you esteemed opinion does the argument presented by Matto fail in supporting his version of truth?

[Matto]

If no one is in error, then there is no such thing as Truth, and thus the Truth sets no one free, it has been nullified.

That is hardly an argument for accepting your version of the truth.

No, versions of the Truth is a Protestant idea.

The fullness of Truth is a Catholic idea.

A relativist can only have versions of the Truth, but the Truth is something that escapes him.

The Protestant mindset thinks in terms of creating it's own truth. But the Truth is not created by the mind, it is something that man reaches up for and takes to himself.
To a Catholic the Truth is absolute, and eternal, he knows that the Truth is true whether a man believes it or not.
That is why relativism is so deadly, it denies the Truth, and talks of versions of the Truth.

The Truth is not something that can be known doctrinally in Protestantism, just conflicted opinions.

So whilst a Protestant is happy with just versions of the truth, for a Catholic it is unacceptable and unsaticifying.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: So says Tim Boney ? Note the question mark Tim. And note that Matto's statement starts with- If. Where in you you esteemed opinion does the argument presented by Matto fail in supporting his version of truth?

Ed you aren't really going to stand up for Matto's style of arguing are you?

Matto's argument fail because he gives no backing to his viewpoint. His assumptions are all a priori. He quoted one church father out of context to argue for the infallibility of the Church. (BTW, not the same thing as the infallibility of the Pope) and then because I don't agree with him I'm a "relativist."

If you'd like to either agree with him or argue with him about "relativism" go right ahead. You are a non-catholic too so he is saying your faith has not truth in it either.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: So says Tim Boney ? Note the question mark Tim. And note that Matto's statement starts with- If. Where in you you esteemed opinion does the argument presented by Matto fail in supporting his version of truth?

Ed you aren't really going to stand up for Matto's style of arguing are you?

Matto's argument fail because he gives no backing to his viewpoint. His assumptions are all a priori. He quoted one church father out of context to argue for the infallibility of the Church. (BTW, not the same thing as the infallibility of the Pope) and then because I don't agree with him I'm a "relativist."

If you'd like to either agree with him or argue with him about "relativism" go right ahead. You are a non-catholic too so he is saying your faith has not truth in it either.

Ed: Oh come on Tim, a lot of folk here argue points for which they offer no backing but then Matto's Backing is often the teaching of his church. Many good Catholics , Baptist and Methodist do the same. How often do you refer to the Methodist Manual for your support.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed: Oh come on Tim, a lot of folk here argue points for which they offer no backing but then Matto's Backing is often the teaching of his church. Many good Catholics , Baptist and Methodist do the same. How often do you refer to the Methodist Manual for your support.

Ed you need to read a bit more Matto. He has yet to refer to canon law once. Nor has he tried to make any argument for the truth of his claim other than that he says his church says it is true. His one quote from Ireneus was pulled from a text on gnosticism out of context and said nothing about Papal infallibility. You are always demanding everyone else give hard data, why are you being so soft on Matto?

Yes, I have on occasion quoted the Discipline of the UMC. But when I do so it it to share what United Methodists believe and not to declare that the UMC has infallible truth or that you should be a Methodist. United Methodists in fact are very ecumenical and are proud of our ecumenical heritage. Matto is claiming absolute truth for the RCC, the Pope, and by extension because of the way he argues for himself.

Surely Ed I should expect some shred of evidence other than Matto's ardent beliefs.

Why don't you discuss it with him Ed?

[Matto]

You reject the evidence of Irenaeus and Cyprian then you say there is no evidence Timothy.

These Church Fathers were pre Constantine in the time of pagan Roman persecution, and and they looked at the Apostolic See as having primacy over all the Church.

The Chair of Peter is Gods guarantee of Teaching Authority and Truth, to the whole Church.

In protestantism people have no guarantee of the Infallible Truth, it's doctrines are divided an conflicted on the differing opinions of men.
Each denomination and non- denomination has a human founder and interpreter, and they are divided as a result.
The division is just a manifestation of the crisis of authority.

Just as the Church Fathers looked to the Chair of Peter on matters of doctrine, so a Catholic does today. Nothing has changed and it is entirely consistent.

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the Rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

The flood is the sea of error and opinion that exists outside The Chair of Peter, which is the Ark of Infallible guidance.
There were many who sneered at Noah's Ark, right up to moment the doors of the Ark were closed.

Genisis 6:21 "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."

" Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him, Feed my sheep."

Just as God commanded Noah to feed His animals so Peter is also told to feed His Flock.

[Haruo]

Okay, Matto, you've convinced me... the Pope would look much more patriarchal if he'd let his beard grow unmolested. Maybe then the dove would land on his hand instead of flying off.

[Matto]

Okay, Matto, you've convinced me.

Great, so when are you coming aboard, Easter is the usual, it gives you more time for formation.

And remember they boarded in pairs.

[Dave Roberts]

Of course, the picture is not of the dove coming aboard the first time but of the dove returning with an olive branch in its beak.

[Timothy Bonney]

Of course, the picture is not of the dove coming aboard the first time but of the dove returning with an olive branch in its beak.

Now Dave, lets not confuse the issue by pulling out the Bible and coming up with facts.

[Timothy Bonney]

You reject the evidence of Irenaeus and Cyprian then you say there is no evidence Timothy.

How about some Biblical evidence Matto? Surely a doctrine of such importance could be proven from the scriptures?

In protestantism people have no guarantee of the Infallible Truth,

Not from any mere human being we don't Matto, that is correct. Protestants believe that truth rests primarily in Jesus Christ God's divine Word and in the Scriptures, God's inspired word given to us as a guide. Generally Protestants believe no human being or institution has all the answers. We leave the final answers and the final truths to the almighty.

You want a world that is in black and white where all truth is known. I understand that because I think that would be a comfort to many people. But I live in a world where there are lots of areas of gray where human beings don't know all the answers.

So Matto our arguments don't work with each other because you have many absolute authorities that you believe in and are willing to accept. I have only one absolute authority, Jesus Christ, who doesn't always give us a list of propositional truths to follow. Instead he gives us the ultimate truths about following him on the journey.

You have a theology that has already arrived. My theology is always under construction because I don' believe the truth of God can be fully boxed into any theology a human being can comprehend.

[Timothy Bonney]

Oh, and by the way, since Ed reminds me that I often bring up United Methodists, we use four standards on which we base our understanding of the faith. They are Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience with Scripture as the primary source. Matto you almost always refer to "tradition" it seems to me in looking for truth. My opinion (doubtless different from yours) is that tradition has to be judged by scripture, it has to be confirmed by reason, and it has to stand up to the test of experience.

Protestants deemed that the tradition of Papal infallibility neither stood up to the test of the Scriptures nor certainly to their experience of the behavior of the Popes during the time of the Reformation. So Reason told them that the Tradition was in need of updating to match the Experience of Christians.

We won't end up agreeing on any of this because we are approaching Christianity from fundamentally different approaches. So you should neither be surprised or discouraged that you can't convince a Protestant Christian to become a Roman Catholic based on arguments that make a good deal of sense to you a Roman Catholic because your world view is very different than ours.

IMHO, the Way which leads to life, walking in faith in Jesus Christ, does not include the requirement of believing in a certain Church polity. So believe as you will about the Bishop of Rome, it doesn't mean I think you less a Christian because I believe Episcopal polity does not require a Presiding Bishop or one single Bishop to be head of the Church.

Now if you can figure out how I was convinced to become a United Methodist when I was a life long Baptist you might have a better handle on what I find convincing. But that is a whole other long thread that you (and all our Baptist friends here) might not want to be bothered with.

[Matto]

How about some Biblical evidence Matto? Surely a doctrine of such importance could be proven from the scriptures?

Well I don't mind giving scriptural evidence Timothy, the Bible is a Catholic Book, assembled and declared by the Catholic Church from Catholic Tradition. In fact even Protestants rely on the Catholic Churches authentication for the 66 books it has in it's canon of scripture.
Protestants had no hand in authenticating, declaring or assembling the Canon of Scripture, it was entirely the work of the Catholic Church that there is such thing as the Bible in the first place.

The problem that arises when quoting scripture is at the point of interpretation. Catholics have maintained one consistent interpretation handed down from the Apostles through the Church. Where as Protestantism is a house divided on scriptures meaning, having no head of the house it scatters in rebellion.
Protestantism fell apart from it's inception and is still falling apart into ever smaller pieces, the protest has not stopped. It didn't and doesn't stand today, it's a rolling dysfunction.

If Protestantism was a pure belief let's say that Luther constructed, and all Protestantism strictly adhered to Luther's interpretations, doctrines and precepts then it would be consistent and carry more weight.
But it isn't and doesn't, Protestantism is schizophrenic it has as many conflicted heads as there are churches. And in that schizophrenic crowd where is the Truth to be found.
The Truth was the first casualty of Protestantism, because in it's very founding principle are the seeds of it's destruction.
Sola Scriptura, Bible alone, is the man made doctrine that sabotaged protestantism. Rejecting the Apostolic Authority with it's singular interpretation handed down from the Apostles, left the Bible open to any interpretation, and that is what happened.
The Bible now no longer a source of absolute meaning, it was made relative and subjective depending on who interpreted it. Protestantism was a dogs breakfast on moral, theological, and intellectual questions, and it continues to be that dogs breakfast today, a manifest scandal of disunity.
The Bible itself was the source of Protestant disunity, not it's unifier.

[Matto]

Not from any mere human being we don't Matto, that is correct. Protestants believe that truth rests primarily in Jesus Christ God's divine Word and in the Scriptures

Well there are a lot of mere humans in Protestantism interpreting what they believe is the God inspired truth from scripture Timothy. Why aren't they getting the same God inspired truth from scripture, why are they divided on scriptures meaning.
The fact is it's Gods Word in scripture that they are theologically, intellectually and physically divided in there denominations Timothy.
Truth, which denomination in Protestantism has that, and how do you explain completely opposing doctrines in Protestantism, which is true of those?
There's no such thing as Truth in Protestantism, for that there would have to be an Infallible Authority to declare it.
The Truth went out the window with Luther, and the primacy of opinion became the new Pope.

Each mans private interpretation and opinion were enthroned as the rule, not the Bible.

The Bible is not the source of Truth in Protestantism, it is the source of disunity and division.

[Matto]

You have a theology that has already arrived. My theology is always under construction

The Truth doesn't need construction Timothy, it stands on it's own. Falsehoods need constant construction however, and despite it, they form shaky and dangerous edifices.

If a Protestant was going to apply his theological methodology to the construction industry he would immediately throw away the tools of absolute measure. The square, the level and plumb line would be flung far from him for the nasty Infallible authorities that they are.

He would then grasp the plans with chest out saying ' God will show me what is square, level and plumb ', then set to work building a house after his own image.

And if two such Protestants be neighbors they would build two different houses, with opposing face and frame, from those very same plans. Then they would narrow their eyes at each other over a theologically battered fence.

" If the Lord does not build a house, then in vain do the builders labor"

Jesus said to Peter that he was the "Rock on which I build my Church ".

The Infallible Office of Peter is the square, level and plumb, that Christ gave for the construction of His Church.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ on Peter, the Infallible source of Truth that is guided by God.

Not human founded churches on conflicted human interpretations, where in them does the Truth matter? The truth is unknowable in Protestantism, and irrelevant.

Why tolerate the fullness of Truth when you can have the fullness of your opinion.

[Matto]

Protestantism is a do it yourself religion. Just pick up a Bible and then construct a theology on your opinion of what it means.
God and Truth have no hand in it's construction, they all have human founders.

[Ed Pettibone]

Protestantism is a do it yourself religion. Just pick up a Bible and then construct a theology on your opinion of what it means.
God and Truth have no hand in it's construction, they all have human founders.

Ed: Matto are you suggesting that Jesus was not human? And how about Peter?

[Matto]

Protestantism is a do it yourself religion. Just pick up a Bible and then construct a theology on your opinion of what it means.
God and Truth have no hand in it's construction, they all have human founders.

Ed: Matto are you suggesting that Jesus was not human? And how about Peter?

Jesus is not just human, He is Divine, God.

[Ed Pettibone]

Protestantism is a do it yourself religion. Just pick up a Bible and then construct a theology on your opinion of what it means.
God and Truth have no hand in it's construction, they all have human founders.

Ed: Matto are you suggesting that Jesus was not human? And how about Peter?

Jesus is not just human, He is Divine, God.

Ed: And as his followers we have the Holy Spirit Living in us.

[Timothy Bonney]

Protestantism fell apart from it's inception and is still falling apart into ever smaller pieces, the protest has not stopped. It didn't and doesn't stand today, it's a rolling dysfunction.

Matto, Protestantism was never one entity. It is simply a blanket term for those who protested the direction of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. It isn't a house divided because it was never a single house. From the very begin there were distinct leaders in the Reformation who chose different directions. So you can't compare Protestantism to Roman Catholicism in that way. One is a single entity the other never was.

[Timothy Bonney]

Each mans private interpretation and opinion were enthroned as the rule, not the Bible.

The Bible is not the source of Truth in Protestantism, it is the source of disunity and division.

I'm afraid the above is just not entirely true. Certainly the United Methodist Church and many other Protestant denominations have official doctrinal positions. It is not left up to each person in the UMC or any of the other Mainline Protestant Churches to choose their own doctrine.

The Bible isn't THE source of truth anyway Matto. Jesus is the Divine Word of God and God is the source of truth. What comes from the Bible to us is the inspired writings of those God inspired to share part of God's divine truth with us. Or do you not believe in the inspiration of scripture?

[Timothy Bonney]

You have a theology that has already arrived. My theology is always under construction

The Truth doesn't need construction Timothy, it stands on it's own. Falsehoods need constant construction however, and despite it, they form shaky and dangerous edifices.

No Matto the truth doesn't need construction. Human understanding of the truth need construction and discovery. The Church you are a part of has developed its doctrines over centuries. They aren't exactly the same as they were at the founding of the Church. Roman Catholic Canon Law didn't just drop out of the sky already written. It happened over time. Your Church's theology developed.

[Matto]

You have a theology that has already arrived. My theology is always under construction

The Truth doesn't need construction Timothy, it stands on it's own. Falsehoods need constant construction however, and despite it, they form shaky and dangerous edifices.

No Matto the truth doesn't need construction.  Human understanding of the truth need construction and discovery.  The Church you are a part of has developed its doctrines over centuries.  They aren't exactly the same as they were at the founding of the Church.  Roman Catholic Canon Law didn't just drop out of the sky already written.  It happened over time.  Your Church's theology developed.

No the Catholic Church has always held to the same Apostolic beliefs from the beginning. The Church however defines the faith it has always held to, after it is challenged.
A heresy arises and the Church merely states what has already been handed down from the Apostles.
Take for example
The Immaculate Conception which was solemnly defined on the 8th of December 1854.

This was not some new belief coming into existence, it had always been believed by the Catholic Church.

 “I am a disciple of the chaste shepherd … He taught me … faithful writings. He sent me to Rome, to behold a kingdom and to see a queen with golden robe and golden shoes. There I saw a people bearing the splendid seal … Having Paul as a companion, everywhere faith led the way and set before me for food the fish from the spring, mighty and pure, whom a Immaculate Virgin caught, and gave this to friends to eat, always having sweet wine and giving the mixed cup with bread.” Epitaph of Bishop Abercius (  180 AD )

 “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ... my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate.” St. Ephrem of Edessa,  ( 373 AD )

Catholics only believe that which has always been believed from the Apostles, we don't construct a man made theology from our private opinions of scripture.
It would be a silly idea, since Catholics are the only pre Bible christians.

[Matto]

Protestantism fell apart from it's inception and is still falling apart into ever smaller pieces, the protest has not stopped. It didn't and doesn't stand today, it's a rolling dysfunction.

Matto, Protestantism was never one entity. It is simply a blanket term for those who protested the direction of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation. It isn't a house divided because it was never a single house. From the very begin there were distinct leaders in the Reformation who chose different directions. So you can't compare Protestantism to Roman Catholicism in that way. One is a single entity the other never was.

What happened is protestantism started disintegrating very quickly from the start. Luther assumed that everyone interpreting scripture would come to his conclusions, but lamented greatly when he saw everything falling apart.
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams." Martin Luther.

He had opened pandoras box, and reaped a whirlwind error. Once he disconnected from the Infallible anchor of Peter which had guided the Church for 1500 years, every one followed their own opinions. He certainly could not claim any authority.

“It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves.” Martin Luther.

The division was well under way and it just fractured onward from there. Luther realized just how ridiculous the crazy schizophrenic division was, Truth was the first casualty.
1500 years of consistent Apostolic government and teaching was rejected and they scattered into tens of thousands of denominations and non denominations.

Cyprian pointed this out in 250 AD.

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering."

Outside the unity of the Chair of Peter everyone scatters.

[Timothy Bonney]

No the Catholic Church has always held to the same Apostolic beliefs from the beginning.

No, your assumption. Not historical fact.